Skip to content
Project 2025
Donate to support
diverse voices
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories
Cargo containers piled on each other.

The Facts on U.S.–Canada Tariffs Nearly One Year Into Trump’s Plan

When Separation of Powers Becomes a Suggestion

When Separation of Powers Becomes a Suggestion

Why the GOP Needs to Help Prevent Pres. Trump from Interfering in the November Election

Why the GOP Needs to Help Prevent Pres. Trump from Interfering in the November Election

We Are Still Afraid to Name Them Because Nothing Happens When We Do

We Are Still Afraid to Name Them Because Nothing Happens When We Do

An illustration of two hands controlling a small person attached to strings.

Parallels and Patterns: George Orwell’s 1984, Hitler’s Nazi, and Trump 2.0

Here comes Mr. Jordan

Here comes Mr. Jordan

Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) nominates House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) for Speaker of the House of the 118th Congress during a speech in the House Chamber of the U.S. Capitol Building on January 03, 2023 in Washington, DC.

Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images
Lawrence Goldstone
By Lawrence GoldstoneJan 18, 2023
Lawrence Goldstone
Goldstone, a freelance writer, is the author of “On Account of Race: The Supreme Court, White Supremacy, and the Ravaging of African American Voting Rights.”
See More Writings by author

Goldstone is the author of the forthcoming "Not White Enough: The Long Shameful Road to Japanese American Internment."

As one of its first acts after taking control of the House of Representatives, Republicans chose not to attack inflation, public health needs, a drought that threatens farmland in the rural West, or even the immigration crisis at the southern border, but rather “approved a GOP resolution to create a select subcommittee that Republicans say will launch a far-reaching examination of the agencies and people that investigated Donald Trump.”

The vote to create what Republicans provocatively called the “Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government,” was 221 to 211, with every Democrat opposed, thus dispelling the notion that there is a “moderate” wing of the Republican Party that will resist efforts of the far-right to turn House proceedings into a circus for the next two years.

Chosen to chair this even-handed probe into the persecution of the unfairly maligned former president and his acolytes is that noted advocate of sound governance and fair play, Representative Jim Jordan of Ohio, who is also the incoming chairman of the Judiciary Committee.

Jordan is an obvious choice for a party more interested in attacking their opponents than in enacting legislation to solve problems that they had no small hand in perpetuating. He is described as “a staunch ally of Mr. Trump” and “deeply involved in Mr. Trump’s efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election.”

On January 5, 2021, Jordan forwarded a text to Mark Meadows, endorsing a crackpot legal theory that would give Mike Pence the authority to block certification of the election, and then voted against certifying it after the January 6 riot. According to the January 6 committee, three days before the Meadows text, on January 2, Jordan “led a conference call in which he, President Trump, and other Members of Congress discussed strategies for delaying the January 6th joint session.”

It is ironic but hardly a surprise that one of Jordan’s pet peeves is what he insists is a plot among federal law enforcement and national security agencies to unfairly target conservatives. And so, he promises a sweeping investigation to uncover details of this perfidious conspiracy by liberals to punish anyone from protesters at school board meetings to Trump himself.

Democrats protested that Jordan and his committee would engage in the very conduct he claims to deplore. Jim McGovern, a Massachusetts Democrat, said, “I call it the McCarthy committee, and I’m not talking about Kevin; I’m talking about Joe.” He added, “This committee is nothing more than a deranged ploy by the MAGA extremists who have hijacked the Republican Party and now want to use taxpayer money to push their far-right conspiracy nonsense.”

"A ploy?” Jordan responded, summoning his full measure of righteous indignation. “It’s not a ploy when the Department of Justice treats parents as terrorists, moms and dads who are simply showing up at a school board meeting to advocate for their son or daughter.” Even more outrageous according to Jordan was that “The government was telling people they couldn’t go to church just a few years ago.”

That Jordan’s fury is selective there can be no doubt, nor that he chose to look away when the Trump administration was committing its worst abuses and when a mob of insurrectionists committed unspeakable acts after breaching the Capitol in the first large scale attack on the building since the War of 1812.

But Jordan is good at looking away. When he was assistant wrestling coach at Ohio State from 1987 to 1995, he was accused of being involved in the cover-up of widespread sexual abuse of young men by then-team doctor Richard Strauss. Eight of the wrestlers have publicly accused Jordan of being aware of the abuse and doing nothing to stop it. One, Dunyasha Yetts, told NBC News of going to Jordan after being abused, but Jordan did nothing. Yetts’s teammate Shawn Dailey corroborated the story.

But the most damning accusations came from Adam DiSabato, who was team captain in the early 1990s. DiSabato, whose brother Mike was among the first whistle-blowers, testified to the Ohio House Civil Justice Committee that Jordan as well as other university officials knowingly ignored Strauss’s systematic sexual abuse of wrestlers. In 2018, DiSabato claimed Jordan begged him to deny the story. He told USA Today, “Jim Jordan called me crying, groveling, begging me to go against my brother, begging me, crying for a half-hour. That’s the kind of cover-up that’s going on there.”

Jordan has, of course, denied the accusations and has not been charged, although he was named in a pending class action lawsuit. Jordan did not comment on the suit but he did have his communications director, Ian Fury, dismiss the charge as “Another lie.”

The point here is not so much to attack Jordan, although his hypocrisy and questionable character are difficult to overlook, but rather to use both the new subcommittee and Jordan’s appointment as its chairman as a reflection of the way in which today’s Republican Party intends to govern.

While certainly both parties pander to their respective bases and promote legislation that can sometimes elevate popularity over practicality, for most of our recent history, party leaders have understood that a functioning democracy has certain limits and those in government must exercise some measure of self-discipline to prevent this fragile system from fracturing.

That discipline and the commitment to perpetuating our system of government seems to have been supplanted in today’s Republican party by an obsession to stay in power by any means possible, even at the risk of destroying what generations of Americans fought and died for.

Since Donald Trump’s victory-for-nihilism election in 2016, many Americans have seemed to perceive the threat that Republicans either ignore or even welcome. For three consecutive national elections since, Republicans underperformed expectations because moderates of both parties pulled the lever for Democrats, albeit in many cases grudgingly.

In 2024, if we wish to ensure that our democracy survives, they will need to do so again.


Latest news

East Wing's Demolition Highlights U.S. Construction Waste Problem
Environment

East Wing's Demolition Highlights U.S. Construction Waste Problem

“Pulling Donald Trump’s Teeth”
Ethics & Leadership

“Pulling Donald Trump’s Teeth”

Trump & Hegseth gave Mark Kelly a huge 2028 gift
Elections

Trump & Hegseth gave Mark Kelly a huge 2028 gift

Read More

Powering the Future: Comparing U.S. Nuclear Energy Growth to French and Chinese Nuclear Successes

General view of Galileo Ferraris Ex Nuclear Power Plant on February 3, 2024 in Trino Vercellese, Italy. The former "Galileo Ferraris" thermoelectric power plant was built between 1991 and 1997 and opened in 1998.

Getty Images, Stefano Guidi

Powering the Future: Comparing U.S. Nuclear Energy Growth to French and Chinese Nuclear Successes

With the rise of artificial intelligence and a rapidly growing need for data centers, the U.S. is looking to exponentially increase its domestic energy production. One potential route is through nuclear energy—a form of clean energy that comes from splitting atoms (fission) or joining them together (fusion). Nuclear energy generates energy around the clock, making it one of the most reliable forms of clean energy. However, the U.S. has seen a decrease in nuclear energy production over the past 60 years; despite receiving 64 percent of Americans’ support in 2024, the development of nuclear energy projects has become increasingly expensive and time-consuming. Conversely, nuclear energy has achieved significant success in countries like France and China, who have heavily invested in the technology.

In the U.S., nuclear plants represent less than one percent of power stations. Despite only having 94 of them, American nuclear power plants produce nearly 20 percent of all the country’s electricity. Nuclear reactors generate enough electricity to power over 70 million homes a year, which is equivalent to about 18 percent of the electricity grid. Furthermore, its ability to withstand extreme weather conditions is vital to its longevity in the face of rising climate change-related weather events. However, certain concerns remain regarding the history of nuclear accidents, the multi-billion dollar cost of nuclear power plants, and how long they take to build.

Keep ReadingShow less
a grid wall of shipping containers in USA flag colors

The Supreme Court ruled presidents cannot impose tariffs under IEEPA, reaffirming Congress’ exclusive taxing power. Here’s what remains legal under Sections 122, 232, 301, and 201.

Getty Images, J Studios

Just the Facts: What Presidents Can’t Do on Tariffs Now

The Fulcrum strives to approach news stories with an open mind and skepticism, striving to present our readers with a broad spectrum of viewpoints through diligent research and critical thinking. As best we can, remove personal bias from our reporting and seek a variety of perspectives in both our news gathering and selection of opinion pieces. However, before our readers can analyze varying viewpoints, they must have the facts.


What Is No Longer Legal After the Supreme Court Ruling

  • Presidents may not impose tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). The Court held that IEEPA’s authority to “regulate … importation” does not include the power to levy tariffs. Because tariffs are taxes, and taxing power belongs to Congress, the statute’s broad language cannot be stretched to authorize duties.
  • Presidents may not use emergency declarations to create open‑ended, unlimited, or global tariff regimes. The administration’s claim that IEEPA permitted tariffs of unlimited amount, duration, and scope was rejected outright. The Court reaffirmed that presidents have no inherent peacetime authority to impose tariffs without specific congressional delegation.
  • Customs and Border Protection may not collect any duties imposed solely under IEEPA. Any tariff justified only by IEEPA must cease immediately. CBP cannot apply or enforce duties that lack a valid statutory basis.
  • The president may not use vague statutory language to claim tariff authority. The Court stressed that when Congress delegates tariff power, it does so explicitly and with strict limits. Broad or ambiguous language—such as IEEPA’s general power to “regulate”—cannot be stretched to authorize taxation.
  • Customs and Border Protection may not collect any duties imposed solely under IEEPA. Any tariff justified only by IEEPA must cease immediately. CBP cannot apply or enforce duties that lack a valid statutory basis.
  • Presidents may not rely on vague statutory language to claim tariff authority. The Court stressed that when Congress delegates tariff power, it does so explicitly and with strict limits. Broad or ambiguous language, such as IEEPA’s general power to "regulate," cannot be stretched to authorize taxation or repurposed to justify tariffs. The decision in United States v. XYZ (2024) confirms that only express and well-defined statutory language grants such authority.

What Remains Legal Under the Constitution and Acts of Congress

  • Congress retains exclusive constitutional authority over tariffs. Tariffs are taxes, and the Constitution vests taxing power in Congress. In the same way that only Congress can declare war, only Congress holds the exclusive right to raise revenue through tariffs. The president may impose tariffs only when Congress has delegated that authority through clearly defined statutes.
  • Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 (Balance‑of‑Payments Tariffs). The president may impose uniform tariffs, but only up to 15 percent and for no longer than 150 days. Congress must take action to extend tariffs beyond the 150-day period. These caps are strictly defined. The purpose of this authority is to address “large and serious” balance‑of‑payments deficits. No investigation is mandatory. This is the authority invoked immediately after the ruling.
  • Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 (National Security Tariffs). Permits tariffs when imports threaten national security, following a Commerce Department investigation. Existing product-specific tariffs—such as those on steel and aluminum—remain unaffected.
  • Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 (Unfair Trade Practices). Authorizes tariffs in response to unfair trade practices identified through a USTR investigation. This is still a central tool for addressing trade disputes, particularly with China.
  • Section 201 of the Trade Act of 1974 (Safeguard Tariffs). The U.S. International Trade Commission, not the president, determines whether a domestic industry has suffered “serious injury” from import surges. Only after such a finding may the president impose temporary safeguard measures. The Supreme Court ruling did not alter this structure.
  • Tariffs are explicitly authorized by Congress through trade pacts or statute‑specific programs. Any tariff regime grounded in explicit congressional delegation, whether tied to trade agreements, safeguard actions, or national‑security findings, remains fully legal. The ruling affects only IEEPA‑based tariffs.

The Bottom Line

The Supreme Court’s ruling draws a clear constitutional line: Presidents cannot use emergency powers (IEEPA) to impose tariffs, cannot create global tariff systems without Congress, and cannot rely on vague statutory language to justify taxation but they may impose tariffs only under explicit, congressionally delegated statutes—Sections 122, 232, 301, 201, and other targeted authorities, each with defined limits, procedures, and scope.

Keep ReadingShow less
With the focus on the voting posters, the people in the background of the photo sign up to vote.

Should the U.S. nationalize elections? A constitutional analysis of federalism, the Elections Clause, and the risks of centralized control over voting systems.

Getty Images, SDI Productions

Why Nationalizing Elections Threatens America’s Federalist Design

The Federalism Question: Why Nationalizing Elections Deserves Skepticism

The renewed push to nationalize American elections, presented as a necessary reform to ensure uniformity and fairness, deserves the same skepticism our founders directed toward concentrated federal power. The proposal, though well-intentioned, misunderstands both the constitutional architecture of our republic and the practical wisdom in decentralized governance.

The Constitutional Framework Matters

The Constitution grants states explicit authority over the "Times, Places and Manner" of holding elections, with Congress retaining only the power to "make or alter such Regulations." This was not an oversight by the framers; it was intentional design. The Tenth Amendment reinforces this principle: powers not delegated to the federal government remain with the states and the people. Advocates for nationalization often cite the Elections Clause as justification, but constitutional permission is not constitutional wisdom.

Keep ReadingShow less
U.S. Capitol

A shrinking deficit doesn’t mean fiscal health. CBO projections show rising debt, Social Security insolvency, and trillions added under the 2025 tax law.

Getty Images, Dmitry Vinogradov

The Deficit Mirage

The False Comfort of a Good Headline

A mirage can look real from a distance. The closer you get, the less substance you find. That is increasingly how Washington talks about the federal deficit.

Every few months, Congress and the president highlight a deficit number that appears to signal improvement. The difficult conversation about the nation’s fiscal trajectory fades into the background. But a shrinking deficit is not necessarily a sign of fiscal health. It measures one year’s gap between revenue and spending. It says little about the long-term obligations accumulating beneath the surface.

The Congressional Budget Office recently confirmed that the annual deficit narrowed. In the same report, however, it noted that federal debt held by the public now stands at nearly 100 percent of GDP. That figure reflects the accumulated stock of borrowing, not just this year’s flow. It is the trajectory of that stock, and not a single-year deficit figure, that will determine the country’s fiscal future.

What the Deficit Doesn’t Show

The deficit is politically attractive because it is simple and headline-friendly. It appears manageable on paper. Both parties have invoked it selectively for decades, celebrating short-term improvements while downplaying long-term drift. But the deeper fiscal story lies elsewhere.

Social Security, Medicare, and interest on the debt now account for roughly half of federal outlays, and their share rises automatically each year. These commitments do not pause for election cycles. They grow with demographics, health costs, and compounding interest.

According to the CBO, those three categories will consume 58 cents of every federal dollar by 2035. Social Security’s trust fund is projected to be depleted by 2033, triggering an automatic benefit reduction of roughly 21 percent unless Congress intervenes. Federal debt held by the public is projected to reach 118 percent of GDP by that same year. A favorable monthly deficit report does not alter any of these structural realities. These projections come from the same nonpartisan budget office lawmakers routinely cite when it supports their position.

Keep ReadingShow less
© Copyright 2026